Highlights

• USGS shifts critical minerals assessment methodology from import reliance to probability-weighted GDP loss modeling
• Only six minerals remain critical when the GDP loss threshold is raised to $1 billion, including heavy rare earths and tech metals.
• Investors should focus on strategic minerals with the highest modeled economic impacts, particularly in defense, EVs, and semiconductors.

---

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has released its 2025 draft critical minerals list—expanded to 54 minerals from 50 in 2022. For the rare earth investor, this update matters because it can unlock federal tools—such as Defense Production Act support, targeted tax incentives, stockpiling, or permitting prioritization—depending on program and statute.

The methodology is the real story. Instead of static import-reliance metrics, the USGS now models probability-weighted GDP losses from simulated supply shocks. In short—risk is now measured in impact, not theory.

A Restaurant Fire Standard?

Here, the analysis gets pointed. By setting the cutoff at $2 million in modeled GDP loss, nearly every obscure mineral makes the list. Hendrix likens this threshold to the damage from a medium-sized restaurant fire—hardly macroeconomic. His point is fair: a $30 trillion economy doesn’t blink at such losses.

Raise the bar, however, and the list shrinks dramatically. At >$1 billion in modeled losses, only six minerals remain: samarium, rhodium, lutetium, terbium, dysprosium, and gallium. Three of those are heavy rare earths (Dy, Tb, Lu), one (Sm) is a light REE, and two (Ga, Rh) are non-REE tech metals. These six, though small-volume, anchor massive downstream sectors in defense, EVs, and semiconductors.

What’s Rock-Solid

Factually, the piece gets the basics right: China’s dominance, U.S. vulnerability to single points of failure, and the fact that “critical” status triggers meaningful policy attention. The USGS methodology shift is accurately explained, and the critique of the $2 million threshold is well-founded. Investors should pay close attention to the ranking table of GDP impacts—that’s where the real signal lies.

The article veers into policy advocacy when it argues the methodology “misses the forest for the trees” by not counting health, environmental, or defense externalities. While it is true that GDP modeling underestimates noneconomic value, this is a known limitation rather than a fatal flaw. The framing tilts toward a more expansive government role in pricing “intangibles”—something economists themselves debate.

Investor Takeaway

For rare earth watchers, the message is clear: the true choke points cluster around heavy REEs (Dy, Tb, Lu) and enabling metals like gallium and germanium. The list may be long, but capital and policy attention will concentrate where the modeled impacts—and strategic stakes—are highest. Retail and institutional investors alike should be wary of headlines treating all 54 equally. In Washington, as on Wall Street, focus is finite.

Source: Cullen S. Hendrix, “The draft US critical minerals list: Clearer priorities, persistent challenges (opens in a new tab),” PIIE RealTime

Economics Blog, September 8, 2025. Note: This is a draft list open for public comment through September 25, 2025.

©!-- /wp:paragraph -->